Status reports of the fisheries and aquatic resources of ... · The Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia 2013/14 uses an Ecosystem Based Fisheries

Status reports of the fisheries and aquatic resources of Western Australia 2013/14State of the fisheries

Status reports of the fisheries and aquatic resources of Western Australia 2013/14

Status reports of the fisheries and aquatic resources of Western Australia 2013/14State of the fisheries

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

Edited by W.J. Fletcher and K. Santoro

Produced by the Fisheries Research Division based at the WA Fisheries and Marine Research Laboratories

Published by the Department of Fisheries

3rd Floor, The Atrium

168 St Georges Terrace

Perth WA 6000

Website: www.fish.wa.gov.au

ABN: 55 689 794 771

ISSN 2200-7849 (Print)

ISSN 2200-7857 (Online)

Suggested citation format:

Entire report:

Fletcher, W.J. and Santoro, K. (eds). (2014). Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia 2013/14:

The State of the Fisheries. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

Individual status report:

Hart, A., Brown, J., O’Malley, J. (2014). Roe’s Abalone Fishery Status Report. In: Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic

Resources of Western Australia 2013/14: The State of the Fisheries eds. W.J. Fletcher and K. Santoro, Department of Fisheries,

Western Australia, pp. 41-51.

STATUS REPORTS OF THE FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA 2013/14 i

CONTENTS

OVERVIEW FROM THE DIRECTOR GENERAL .......... 1 EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION .......................................... 2 HOW TO USE THIS VOLUME ....................................... 4 OVERVIEW OF THE STATUS OF KEY ECOLOGICAL

RESOURCES (ASSETS) ............................................. 10 ECOSYSTEM STRUCTURE AND BIODIVERSITY 10 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............... 12

WEST COAST BIOREGION ........................................ 22 ABOUT THE BIOREGION ....................................... 22 SUMMARY OF FISHING AND AQUACULTURE

ACTIVITIES ............................................................. 22 ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ............................... 22 ECOSYSTEM BASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

................................................................................ 23 Introduced Pests Status Report .......................... 30

FISHERIES ............................................................. 32 West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery Status Report 32 Roe’s Abalone Fishery Status Report ................. 41 Abrolhos Islands and Mid West, South West

Trawl Managed Fisheries and South Coast Trawl

Fishery Status Report ......................................... 51 West Coast Blue Swimmer Crab Fishery Status

Report ................................................................. 57 West Coast Nearshore and Estuarine Finfish

Resources Status Report .................................... 67 West Coast Purse Seine Fishery Report:

Statistics Only ..................................................... 83 West Coast Demersal Scalefish Resource Status

Report ................................................................. 85 Octopus Fishery Status Report ........................... 98

AQUACULTURE ................................................... 103 COMPLIANCE AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION . 103

GASCOYNE COAST BIOREGION ............................ 106 ABOUT THE BIOREGION ..................................... 106 SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES POTENTIALLY

IMPACTING THE BIOREGION ............................. 106 ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ............................. 108 ECOSYSTEM MONITORING AND STATUS ........ 111

Introduced Pests Status Report ........................ 118 FISHERIES ........................................................... 119

Shark Bay Prawn and Scallop Managed

Fisheries Status Report .................................... 119 Exmouth Gulf Prawn Managed Fishery Status

Report ............................................................... 127 West Coast

1 Deep Sea Crustacean Managed

Fishery Status Report ....................................... 133 Gascoyne Demersal Scalefish Fishery Status

Report ............................................................... 137 Inner Shark Bay Scalefish Fishery Status

Report ............................................................... 144 Shark Bay Blue Swimmer Crab Fishery Status

Report ............................................................... 151 AQUACULTURE ................................................... 156 COMPLIANCE AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION . 156

NORTH COAST BIOREGION .................................... 159 ABOUT THE BIOREGION ..................................... 159 SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES POTENTIALLY

IMPACTING THE BIOREGION ............................. 160 ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ............................. 163 ECOSYSTEM MONITORING AND STATUS ........ 167

Introduced Pests Status Report ........................ 175 FISHERIES ............................................................ 177

North Coast Prawn Managed Fisheries Status

Report ............................................................... 177 North Coast Nearshore and Estuarine Fishery

Status Report .................................................... 185 North Coast Demersal Fisheries Status Report 192 Mackerel Managed Fishery Report: Statistics

Only .................................................................. 210 Pearl Oyster Managed Fishery Status Report .. 213 Beche-de-mer Fishery Status Report ................ 218 North Coast Crab Fishery Status Report .......... 222

AQUACULTURE.................................................... 229 COMPLIANCE AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION . 230

SOUTH COAST BIOREGION .................................... 233 ABOUT THE BIOREGION ..................................... 233 SUMMARY OF FISHING AND AQUACULTURE

ACTIVITIES ........................................................... 233 ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ............................. 233 ECOSYSTEM BASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

............................................................................... 234 Introduced Pests Status Report ........................ 237

FISHERIES ............................................................ 238 South Coast Crustacean Fisheries Status

Report ............................................................... 238 Greenlip/Brownlip Abalone Fishery Status

Report ............................................................... 242 South Coast Nearshore and Estuarine Finfish

Resources Status Report .................................. 248 South Coast Purse Seine Fishery Report:

Statistics Only ................................................... 260 Temperate Demersal Gillnet and Demersal

Longline Fisheries Status Report ...................... 263 South Coast Demersal Scalefish Resource

Report: Statistics Only ...................................... 275 AQUACULTURE.................................................... 277 COMPLIANCE AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION . 278

NORTHERN INLAND BIOREGION ............................ 281 ABOUT THE BIOREGION ..................................... 281 SUMMARY OF FISHING AND AQUACULTURE

ACTIVITIES ........................................................... 281 ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ............................. 281 ECOSYSTEM BASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

.............................................................................. 281 FISHERIES ............................................................ 283

Lake Argyle Silver Cobbler Fishery Report:

Statistics Only ................................................... 283 AQUACULTURE.................................................... 284 COMPLIANCE AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION . 285

SOUTHERN INLAND BIOREGION ............................ 287 ABOUT THE BIOREGION ..................................... 287 SUMMARY OF FISHING AND AQUACULTURE

ACTIVITIES ........................................................... 287 ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ............................. 287 ECOSYSTEM BASED FISHERIES

MANAGEMENT ..................................................... 287 FISHERIES ............................................................ 290

Licensed South-West Recreational Freshwater

Angling Fishery Report: Statistics only .............. 290 Licensed Recreational Marron Fishery Report .. 293

ii DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

AQUACULTURE ................................................... 302 COMPLIANCE AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION . 303

STATEWIDE .............................................................. 305 ECOSYSTEM BASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

.............................................................................. 305 FISHERIES ........................................................... 306

Marine Aquarium Fish Managed Fishery Report:

Statistics Only ................................................... 306 Specimen Shell Managed Fishery Status

Report ........................................................... 311 APPENDICES ............................................................ 314

APPENDIX 1 ......................................................... 314 Fisheries Research Division staff publications

2013/14 ............................................................. 314 APPENDIX 2 ......................................................... 317

Table of catches from fishers’ statutory monthly

returns for 2012/13 ........................................... 317 Estimated Western Australian Aquaculture

Production for 2012/13 ..................................... 325 APPENDIX 3 ......................................................... 327

Research Division - Other Activities ................. 327

Activities of the Pemberton Freshwater Research

Centre and the Aquaculture & Native Fish

Breeding Laboratory 2013/14 ........................... 327 Activities of the Fish Health Unit during

2013/14 ............................................................. 330 Activities of the Marine Biosecurity Research and

Monitoring Group during 2013/14 ..................... 331 Activities of the Freshwater Biosecurity Research

Program 2013 ................................................... 333 Indian Ocean Territories Fishery Status Report 338 Finfish Ageing Laboratory ................................. 344

APPENDIX 4 ......................................................... 346 Annual performance for commercial fisheries

subject to export approval under the

Commonwealth Government’s Environment

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999 .................................................................. 346 APPENDIX 5 ......................................................... 355

Fisheries Research Division staff adjunct

positions and supervision of students ............... 355 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ............................... 357

STATUS REPORTS OF THE FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA 2013/14 1

OVERVIEW FROM THE DIRECTOR

GENERAL

The Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of

Western Australia (SRFAR) provide the public with an annual

update on the state of the fish stocks and other aquatic

resources of Western Australia (WA) managed by the

Department of Fisheries (Department). These reports outline

the most recent assessments of the cumulative risk status for

each of the aquatic resources (assets) within WA’s six

Bioregions using an Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management

(EBFM) approach. This world leading approach details all

the fisheries and fishing-related activities within each of the

Bioregions which now includes analyses and reports on the

activities and processes undertaken by the Department to

manage the broader aquatic environment, such as habitats,

ecosystems and aquatic pests.

The SRFAR summarises the status of fisheries and aquatic

resources following the 2012-13 or 2013 season, the

Departmental activities undertaken during 2013/14 plus the

outcomes generated by the preceding years. It documents

recent changes to management or policy settings, compliance

and education operations along with the assessments

generated from the ongoing monitoring of stock levels and

ecosystem condition. This document therefore provides a

comprehensive reference for the current status of all Western

Australian aquatic resources including those of major

importance to the commercial and recreational fishing

sectors, the aquaculture industry, the tourism industry, and

for those in the community interested in the overall health of

the aquatic environment.

Western Australia is one of the only fisheries jurisdictions in

the world to fully implement a comprehensive and practical

EBFM framework. EBFM provides a comprehensive, risk

based framework for the overall management of aquatic

resources because it explicitly considers all ecological

resources and community values within a Bioregion to

determine which of these require direct management

intervention. A key finding from this annual report is that the

risks to most aquatic ecological resources in WA continue to

be at acceptable levels.

As outlined previously, given the comprehensive systems of

management that are in place, fishing in WA does not present

an unacceptable risk to the marine, estuarine and freshwater

ecosystems underpinning them. The fishing methods that

may affect the habitat (e.g. trawling) are highly regulated

with over 90% of WA coastline unaffected from these types

of activities. The overwhelming majority of Western

Australian fisheries have also been assessed as posing only

negligible or minor risks to bycatch species, listed species,

habitats or the broader ecosystem. The small number of

fisheries which have previously been identified as posing

some risk to these non-‘capture species’ have had direct

management measures applied and they continue to meet

their annual performance targets or have targeted research

programs to reduce their interactions (e.g. whale

entanglements) . The only ecosystems and component

species in WA that are considered to be at unacceptable

levels continue to be the estuarine and river systems of the

south west region. These risks are not the result of fishing

related activities.

The report also documents that the vast majority of stocks

that support Western Australia’s significant fisheries continue

to be in a healthy condition except where they are being

affected by adverse environmental conditions.

Approximately 97% of commercial fisheries are now

targeting stocks where current management controls are

either maintaining or achieving an acceptable breeding stock

level from the effects of fishing. The detailed investigation

of Australian herring off the South Coast and West Coast

Bioregions presented in last year’s report found that this

stock had been declining over the past decade due to lower

recruitment levels associated with increased water

temperatures experienced over this period. To rebuild the

stock, additional management actions are currently under

development.

A further four fisheries in the Gascoyne and the West Coast

Bioregion were also assessed as having inadequate breeding

stocks but as a result of the negative impacts of

environmental perturbations, not fishing. The poor

recruitment and adult survival levels for Shark Bay crabs,

Shark Bay scallops and scallops in the Abrolhos Island

region which began to be observed during the marine heat

wave event of 2011 have continued, with some recovery only

being shown for Shark Bay crabs. The two scallop fisheries

have now been completely closed for the past two seasons to

protect residual stocks and only experimental fishing was

undertaken for the 2012/13 season of Shark Bay crabs.

A summary of these status reports is included in the

Department’s Annual Report to Parliament, which includes

the Department’s non-financial (fishery) performance

indicators. The Annual Report is available through the

Department’s website (www.fish.wa.gov.au).

The comprehensive set of information used to generate the

bioregional and resource level status reports presented in this

document has provided the Department with the basis to

adopt a world leading methodology to implement the

Government’s third party certification initiative. All

commercial fisheries in WA have been, or are in the process

of undergoing pre-assessment for the Marine Stewardship

Council (MSC) certification system using a bioregional

approach.

The Gascoyne was the first bioregion to have an integrated

set of reports compiled that covered the information relevant

for all commercial fisheries in the Bioregion to enable their

assessment against the three MSC principles (target species,

ecosystem and governance). The North Coast pre-assessment

process has now also been completed and a combined

assessment process is currently underway for the fisheries in

the West and South Coast Bioregions. Importantly, some

fisheries (e.g. Exmouth Gulf and Shark Bay trawl) are

already progressing to full MSC assessment. Any

recommendations from these third party assessments will be

incorporated within the management settings, monitoring

programs and reporting systems over coming years.

http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/

2 DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

I would like to take this opportunity to express my

appreciation to all Departmental staff who contributed to this

important, annual performance review of WA’s aquatic

resources. In addition, many commercial and recreational

fishers, science collaborators and other stakeholders

throughout the State are to be commended for their positive

support for the Department’s monitoring and research

programs and management initiatives, without which such a

high level of sustainability would not be achieved.

HEATHER BRAYFORD

ACTING DIRECTOR GENERAL

November 2014

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

The Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of

Western Australia 2013/14 uses an Ecosystem Based

Fisheries Management (EBFM) framework which is now the

basis for management of Western Australia’s aquatic

resources (Fletcher, et al., 20101, 20122). The format for this

document is therefore consistent with the Department’s full

implementation of a risk-based approach to resource

management. How this document fits within this process is

outlined in Editor’s Figure 1.

The introductory section for each Bioregion outlines the key

ecological resources (assets) and summarises their current

overall (cumulative) risk status. The assets that are examined

in each bioregion include each of the IMCRA3 meso-scale

ecosystems plus the key habitats, captured species and listed

species categories. There is also a section for the external

drivers, such as climate change, coastal development and

introduced pests/diseases, which may affect the Department’s

ability to effectively manage WA’s aquatic resources. Given

the increased activities and regional level assessments that

are occurring as part of the Marine Stewardship Council

(MSC) initiative, these sections are being progressively

expanded. The North Coast has now joined the Gascoyne

Coast as the bioregions that have adopted the new expanded

format.

Within each Bioregion, the set of individual fishery reports

1 W.J. Fletcher, J. Shaw, S.J. Metcalf & D.J. Gaughan (2010) An Ecosystem Based

Fisheries Management framework: the efficient, regional-level planning tool for

management agencies. Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1226–1238

2 Fletcher, W.J., Gaughan, D.J., Metcalfe, S.J., Shaw, J. (2012) Using a regional

level, risk-based framework to cost effectively implement Ecosystem Based

Fisheries Management (EBFM). In: Kruse, G.H., Browman, H.I., Cochrane,

K.L., Evans, D., Jamieson, G.S., Livingston, P.A., Woodby, D., Zhang, C.I.

(eds) Global Progress on Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management. pp. 129-

146. Alaska Sea Grant College Program. doi: 10.4027/gpebfm.2012.07

3 Commonwealth of Australia (2006) A guide to the Integrated Marine and Coastal

Regionalisation of Australia - version 4.0 June 2006 (IMCRA v4.0).

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/publications/imcra/pubs/imcra4.pd

f

are resource-based rather than activity (sector) based. The

different fisheries accessing the same category of ecological

assets are covered in a single report (e.g. West Coast

Nearshore and Estuarine Finfish) which contains descriptions

of all the commercial and recreational activities. Taking this

Bioregional approach to the management of ecological assets

ensures that the aggregate catch harvested from each stock is

identified to enable their cumulative effect to be assessed.

This approach is consistent with the Department’s IFM

initiative and the proposed new Act. The structure of the

reports should enable readers to more easily assess the

interrelationships between fisheries and how the catch is

shared among sectors.

The long-standing involvement by our commercial,

recreational and aquaculture stakeholders in specific research

projects and monitoring programs is recognised. This

includes the provision of logbook data, voluntary

participation in recreational fishing surveys, provision of

biological samples, access to vessels and information which

are essential to the generation of many of the status reports

presented in this document. The input from other science

groups located within WA plus those from other parts of

Australia and internationally is also acknowledged. There

has been an increasing trend over the past decade for

collaborative research projects to be undertaken to assist in

the development of new monitoring and assessment

techniques or to help further our understanding of issues that

affect management.

While the Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic

Resources of Western Australia 2013/14 provides the general

public, interested fishers and other stakeholders with a ready

reference source, it also meets the reporting requirements of

the Department, including the need to annually report on the

‘state of fisheries managed under’ the FRMA4 to the

4 Section 263 of the FRMA.


WesternAustralian Parliament and to the Commonwealth

Government, on the performance of fisheries that are relevant

under their EPBC Act. In addition, with the government

initiative to have all WA commercial fisheries undergo pre-

assessment for MSC certification this has resulted in some

slight changes in the terminology that may be used within

some sections of these reports in order to match that used in

the MSC assessment criteria and also that presented in the

Status of Key Australian Fish Stocks reports1.

The report is directly accessible on the Department’s website

(www.fish.wa.gov.au), where users are encouraged to

download relevant sections for personal use. If quoting from

the document, please give appropriate acknowledgment using

the citation format provided at the front of the report.

Finally, I would like to thank all of my Departmental

colleagues across all Divisions who have assisted in the

production of this volume and its many status reports. Thanks

are once again due to Ms Karen Santoro who has managed

both the coordination and publication processes to enable the

production of this important report.

DR RICK FLETCHER

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RESEARCH

November 2014

EDITOR’S FIGURE 1

An outline showing how the SRFAR fits within the risk based annual planning cycle now used for determining

Departmental priorities and activities.

1 Flood et al. (2012) Status of Key Australian Fish Stocks. Fisheries Research & Development Corporation, Canberra, 420 pp.


HOW TO USE THIS VOLUME

To obtain full benefit from the information provided in this

edition of the Status Reports of Fisheries and Aquatic

Resources of Western Australia, readers need to understand

the various terms and headings used in the text, the fishery

status overview table (which also appears in the Department

of Fisheries Annual Report 2013/14 to Parliament) and

especially those associated with the ecological resource level

reports.

The terms and headings are a combination of the reporting

structures first outlined in the National Ecologically

Sustainable Development (ESD) reporting structure (Fletcher

et al. 2002)1, plus the more recent Ecosystem Based Fisheries

Management (EBFM) framework (Fletcher et al. 2010,

2012)2 and the Resource Assessment Framework (DoF,

2011)3. As part of implementing the Marine Stewardship

Council (MSC) initiative and the development of the pre-

assessment material on each of the fisheries within each of

the four marine bioregions, in some cases the terminology

that is used in reports has been updated to be consistent with

the MSC criteria but where possible also that used within the

Status of Key Australian Fish Stocks reports4.

In addition to the explanations provided below, acronyms are

expanded at their first occurrence in a section of the text and

are also listed in a glossary at the end of the volume.

Bioregions

With the adoption of the EBFM approach, a fully bioregional

structure is used for these reports whereby a ‘Bioregion’

refers to a region defined by common oceanographic

characteristics in its marine environment or by

climate/rainfall characteristics in its inland river systems.

The marine bioregional boundaries used here are consistent

with “A guide to The Integrated Marine and Coastal

Regionalisation of Australia” - version 4.0 June 2006

(IMCRA v4.0)5 except for the inclusion of the Gascoyne

Coast as a separate Bioregion. This reflects its nature as the

transition zone between tropical and temperate waters.

The precise boundaries of the Bioregions reflect functional

geographic separations and data recording systems. Each

individual Bioregion has been provided with a general

1 Fletcher, W.J., Chesson, J., Fisher, M., Sainsbury, K.J., Hundloe, T., Smith,

A.D.M. and Whitworth, B. 2002. National ESD reporting framework for

Australian fisheries: The ‘how to’ guide for wild capture fisheries. Fisheries

Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) project 2000/145, ESD

Reporting and Assessment Subprogram, Fisheries Research and

Development Corporation, Canberra.

2 Fletcher, W.J., Shaw, J., Metcalf, S.J. & D.J. Gaughan (2010) An Ecosystem

Based Fisheries Management framework: the efficient, regional-level planning

tool for management agencies. Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1226–1238

Fletcher, W.J., Gaughan, D.J., Metcalfe, S.J., Shaw, J. 2012. Using a regional level,

risk-based framework to cost effectively implement Ecosystem Based

Fisheries Management (EBFM). In: Kruse, G.H., Browman, H.I., Cochrane,

K.L., Evans, D., Jamieson, G.S., Livingston, P.A., Woodby, D., Zhang, C.I.

(eds) Global Progress on Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management. pp. 129-

146. Alaska Sea Grant College Program. doi: 10.4027/gpebfm.2012.07

3 Department of Fisheries (2011) Resource Assessment Framework for Finfish

Resources in Western Australia. Fisheries Occasional Publication. No. 85

24p.

4 Flood et al. (2012) Status of Key Australian Fish Stocks. Fisheries Research &

Development Corporation, Canberra, 420 pp.

5http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/publications/imcra/pubs/imcra4.pdf

introduction outlining the main features of its aquatic

environment plus the major commercial and recreational

fisheries and aquaculture industries that operate in the area.

This section also outlines the current cumulative risk status of

each of the high level, ecological resources/assets located

within each Bioregion (see below).

Assessment of Regional Level

Ecological Resources (Assets) in

each Bioregion

Consistent with the adoption of the EBFM framework for

each bioregion we have identified the high level set of

ecological resources/assets that are to be managed under the

FRMA (see Introduction Figure 1). The ecological

resources/assets in each Bioregion include the ecosystems

and their constituent habitats, captured species and listed

species. The potential complexity of EBFM is dealt with by

using a step-wise, risk-based approach to integrate the

individual issues identified and information gathered into a

form that can be used by the Department. Similarly, the

levels of knowledge needed for each of the issues only need

to be appropriate to the risk and the level of precaution

adopted by management. Implementing EBFM does not,

therefore, automatically generate the need to collect more

ecological, social or economic data or require the

development of complex ‘ecosystem’ models, it only requires

the consideration of each of these elements to determine

which (if any) requires direct management to achieve

acceptable performance. Full details of how the EBFM

process is undertaken are presented in Fletcher et al. (2012)

with a summary description outlined below.

Ecosystems: Within each Bioregion, one or more meso-scale ecosystems, as defined by the IMCRA process, were

identified with some of these further divided into estuarine

and marine ecosystems where relevant (Introduction Figure

2).

Habitats: The habitat assets in each Bioregion were divided into estuarine and marine categories and again where

necessary the latter category was further divided into

nearshore and offshore components.

Captured Fish: The captured fish were subdivided into finfish, crustaceans and molluscs with each of these further

divided into estuarine/embayments, nearshore, inshore and

offshore demersal and pelagic (finfish only) suites (see also

DoF, 2011).

Listed species: This category, whichincludes Endangered,

Threatened and Protected Species (ETPS) under State or

Commonwealth Acts, was subdivided into listed ‘fish’ (e.g.

White Sharks, Corals) and listed ‘non-fish’ (e.g. mammals) as

defined in the FRMA.

Risk Assessment Status

The risks associated with each individual ecological asset are

examined separately using formal qualitative risk assessment

(Consequence x Likelihood) or more-simple problem



assessment processes, as detailed in Fletcher (2005)1,

Fletcher et al.(2011)2 and Fletcher (2014)3. This enables the

analysis of risk (using a five year time horizon) for objectives

related to captured species, habitat and community

structure/ecosystem sustainability, plus social and economic

outcomes to be completed in a practical and consistent

manner. The implications for the likely level of reporting and

management responses that are required for each of the

different risk categories are outlined below.

The accepted international definition of risk is “the

uncertainty associated with achieving objectives” (ISO,

2009)4, therefore any uncertainties from a lack of specific

data are explicitly incorporated into the assessment enabling

the calculation of risk to be completed with whatever data are

available. All risk scoring considers both current level of

management activities and controls already in place or

planned.

Within each Bioregion, the EBFM process initially identified

hundreds of separate ecological assets, social, economic and

governance issues and risks (Fletcher et al., 2011). This

complexity has been addressed by first assessing each of the

individual risks and then consolidating these into bioregional

or category level risks. The Department’s primary objective

is to manage the sustainability of the community’s ecological

assets from which economic or social outcomes are

generated. Therefore the various ecological, social and

economic risks and values associated with each of these

ecological assets are integrated using a multi-criteria analysis

into approximately 80 Departmental-level priorities

distributed across the six Bioregions.

Recreational Fishing Estimates

To cost effectively monitor recreational fisheries in WA the

Department of Fisheries has developed an integrated survey

design to provide a robust approach for obtaining annual

estimates of recreational catch by boat-based fishers at both

the statewide and bioregional levels. These surveys utilise

the Recreational Fishing from Boat Licence (RFBL) as the

basis for sampling to provide estimates of catch and effort.

The set of surveys provide sufficient information to validate

the estimates by enabling comparisons across the various

methods.

The integrated surveys include three complementary

components: (i) off-site phone surveys encompassing an

initial Screening Survey, a 12-month Phone-Diary Survey,

followed by post-enumeration surveys; (ii) on-site boat-ramp

surveys (including a statewide Biological Survey and a Perth

metropolitan Validation Survey); and (iii) a remote Camera

Survey. This first survey was undertaken for the 12-month

period from 1 March 2011 to 29 February 2012 and the

second was undertaken from 1 May 2013 to 30 April 2014.

Estimates of recreational catch and effort at statewide and

bioregional levels from the first survey were presented in

Ryan et al. (2013)5 provide the data for the catch and effort

by the recreational sector throughout this report. When the

updated estimates from the latest survey are available, these

estimates will be examined against previous recreational

surveys to determine if there have been any material changes

1 Fletcher W.J. (2005). Application of Qualitative Risk Assessment Methodology to Prioritise Issues for Fisheries Management. ICES Journal of Marine Research 2005; 62:1576-

1587

2 Fletcher, W.J., Shaw, J., Gaughan, D.J. and Metcalf, S.J. (2011). Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management case study report – West Coast Bioregion. Fisheries Research Report

No. 225. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. 116 pp.

3 Fletcher, W.J. (2014). Review and refinement of an existing qualitative risk assessment method for application within an ecosystem-based management framework. ICES Journal

of Marine Research. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu/142

4 AS/NZS ISO 31000 (2009). Risk management – Principles and guidelines. Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia.

5 Ryan, K.L., Wise, B.S., Hall, N.G., Pollock, K.H., Sulin, E.H. and Gaughan, D.J. (2013). An integrated system to survey boat-based recreational fishing in Western Australia

2011/12. Fisheries Research Report No. 249, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. 162 pp.

Risk Category Description Likely Reporting

Requirements Likely Management Response

Negligible Not an issue Minimal Nil

Low Acceptable; no specific control

measures needed Justification required None specific

Moderate

Acceptable; with current risk control

measures in place (no new

management required)

Full performance report Specific management and/or

monitoring required

High

Not desirable; continue strong

management actions OR new and/or

further risk control measures to be

introduced in near future

Full Performance Report –

regular monitoring

Increases to management

activities needed

Significant Unacceptable; major changes required

to management in immediate future

Recovery strategy and

detailed monitoring

Increases to management

activities needed urgently



in recreational catch levels. This approach will particularly

focus on the indicator species used to monitor the status of

each of the bioregional level suites.

The statewide survey of boat-based recreational fishing will

be repeated every second year and the next (third) series of

surveys will begin in mid-2015. Methods to cost effectively

monitor shore based recreational fishing are currently under

development.

Harvest Strategy

A Harvest Strategy Policy for the aquatic resources of WA is

currently under development (DoF, in prep). A harvest

strategy establishes clear and specifically articulated

performance levels and the associated set of management

actions designed to achieve each of the agreed objectives

both for the resource and all relevant fishery sectors.

To ensure a holistic and integrated approach, the Harvest

Strategy Policy for WA will not only cover target species

abundance, it will incorporate social and economic

considerations including sectoral allocations but also the

management of unacceptable risks to other ecological

resources.

Breeding Stock Status

The assessments of breeding stock for captured species are

undertaken using a number of techniques (see below) to

determine if the stock is considered to be at an adequate level

or not. The stock status levels are defined as:

Adequate: reflects levels and structure of parental biomass for a stock where annual variability in recruitment of new

individuals (recruits) to the stock is considered to be mostly a

function of environmental effects on recruit survival, not the

level of the egg production.

Recovering: reflects situations where the egg production has previously been depleted to unacceptable levels by

fishing or some other event (e.g. pilchard herpes virus in the

1990s) but is now considered to be recovering at an

acceptable rate due to the implementation of effective

management actions and/or natural processes.

Inadequate: The indicator(s) reflects that the stock status is (are) below the threshold or limit level(s) and a recovery plan

has not yet been implemented or the management actions are

not yet confirmed as operating effectively to reasonably

assume that they are generating a sufficient rate of recovery.

This outcome includes situations where excessive fishing

pressure (catch), some external event, or a combination has

led to the breeding stock biomass falling to levels where there

is now a high risk of future recruitment levels being

measurably reduced. This is equivalent to MSC’s point of

recruitment impairment.

Environmentally Limited: This indicates situations where

the stock is at unacceptable levels due primarily to

environmentally driven impacts (e.g. marine heat wave

impacts), not from fishing activities.

Retained Species (Stock

Assessment Methods)

To underpin the harvest strategy and determine stock status

and fishery performance a stock assessment of the breeding stock level is completed for each major retained species.

Given the difficulites involved, the breeding stock is only

directly measured for a few stocks, in most cases a variety of

indirect measures are used. Each of the status reports clearly

identifies what type of stock assessment method(s) have been

used to determine the status of stocks. The specific methods

used for monitoring and assessment vary among stocks and

indicator species. The choice of methods is affected by many

factors including the level of ecological risk, the biology and

the population dynamics of the relevant species; the type, size

and value of the fishery exploiting the species; data

availability and historical level of monitoring and the level of

precaution in management settings. The methods therefore

vary from the relatively simple analysis of catch levels and

catch rates, through to more sophisticated analyses that

involve sampling of the catch (fishing mortality), direct

surveys up to highly complex and expensive age structured

simulation models.

The range of methods have been categorised into five broad

levels and these are often used together using a ‘weight of

evidence’ approach:

Assessment

Level Description

Level 1 Catch data only

Level 2 Level 1 plus fishery-dependent effort

Level 3

Levels 1 and/or 2 plus fishery-dependent

biological sampling of landed catch (e.g.

average size; fishing mortality, etc.

estimated from representative samples)

Level 4

Levels 1, 2 or 3 plus either fishery-

independent surveys of relative

abundance, exploitation rate, recruitment;

or standardised fishery-dependent relative

abundance data.

Level 5 Levels 1 to 3 and/or 4 integrated within a

simulation, stock assessment model.

Multi species assessments: For each marine bioregion,

all species of finfish and invertebrate are now allocated to

one of five ‘suites’ estuarine, nearshore, inshore demersal,

offshore demersal or pelagic (DoF, 20111). For each of these

suites one or more ‘indicator species’ (which in general

includes the most popular and/or vulnerable species in the

suite) have been selected to reflect the status of the entire

suite. If one or more indicator species is considered to be at

risk, the entire suite is considered to be at risk and additional

management actions are indicated.

1 Department of Fisheries. (2011). Resource Assessment Framework for Finfish

Resources in Western Australia. Fisheries Occasional Publication. No. 85. 24

pp.



Non-retained species

This refers to any species caught during a fishing operation

none of which are retained by the fishing operation. This

covers the potential impact on unwanted ‘bycatch’ species

and any interaction with listed species, which includes

Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species. In

each case, an explanation is provided of the situation and the

level of risk to the stock from fishing operations. This

section does not include release of target species for reasons

such as under size, over bag limits etc. these issues are

already covered in the assessments of retained species.

Ecosystem effects

This refers to the potential indirect impacts generated by

removing fish from the ecosystem (food chain effects), and

direct physical interactions of fishing gear with the sea floor.

Each fishery is considered in terms of its potential/relative

effects on the food chain and the habitat, and an outline of the

assessment of current ecological risk (‘negligible’, ‘low’,

‘medium’, ‘high’ or ‘significant’) is provided. More details

on the information used within these risk assessments will

generally be available in the EBFM reports for each

bioregion (e.g. Fletcher et al. 20111).

Economic Effects

We have categorised the different levels of Gross Value of

Product (GVP) for commercial fisheries into six levels to

measure their relative economic importance. This provides a

mechanism for reporting on all fisheries including those

where the small number of operators would not allow specific

values to be provided. It also covers situations where the

calculation method for GVP are currently under review and

specific values may not be available.

Consequence Level Description

Level 0 nil

Level 1 < $1 million

Level 2 $1 – 5 million

Level 3 $5 -10 million

Level 4 $10 - 20 million

Level 5 > $20 million

Target catch (or effort) range

(Current fishing level)

To minimise interventions and provide greater certainty for

when management adjustments may be required, a target

catch or effort range has been determined for each of the

major commercial fisheries. This indicator provides an

1 Fletcher. W.J., Shaw, J., Gaughan, D.J. Metcalf, S.J. (2011). Ecosystem based

fisheries management case study report West Coast Bioregion. Fisheries

Research Report 225, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. 116 pp.

assessment of the success of the Department’s management

plans and regulatory activities in keeping fish catches at

appropriate levels (including those in a recovery phase). This

identifies if the stock is being subjected to overfishing or not.

To calculate this range a tolerance level establishes for each

fishery what range of deviations in annual catch or effort is

considered acceptable to meet stock based objectives and/or

to meet any sectoral allocations as developed by IFM

determinations. These annual tolerances determine at what

point additional management review and/or intervention is

required. These expected ranges in annual catch levels take

into account natural variations in recruitment to the fished

stock, which can be expected under a fishing-effort-based

management plan.

The catch or effort for each major fishery is assessed

annually and if the catch or effort remains inside the

acceptable range it is defined as having acceptable

performance. Where the annual catch or effort for a

fishery/sector falls outside of this range and the rise or fall

cannot be adequately explained (e.g. environmentally-

induced fluctuations in recruitment levels – like prawns, or

low market prices reduce desired catch levels – e.g. pearl

oysters), a management review or additional research to

assess the underlying cause is generally required.

Target catch range: For most of the commercial and recreational fisheries in WA, the management plan seeks to

directly control the amount of fishing effort applied to stocks,

with the level of catch taken providing an indication of the

effectiveness of the plan. Where the plan is operating

effectively, the catch by the fishery should fall within the

projected acceptable range.

Target effort range: For quota-managed fisheries, the

measure of success for the management arrangements is

firstly that the majority of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC)

is achieved, but additionally, that it has been possible to take

this catch using an acceptable amount of fishing effort.

If an unusually large (or smaller) expenditure of effort is

needed to take the TAC, or the industry fails to achieve the

TAC by a significant margin (ie outside of tolerance levels),

this may indicate that the abundance of the stock is

significantly lower (or larger) than anticipated. For these

reasons, an appropriate range of fishing effort to take the

TAC has also been incorporated for assessing the

performance of quota-managed fisheries.

External factors

This refers to known factors outside of the direct control of

the fishery legislation which impact on fish stocks or fishing.

An understanding of these factors, which are typically

environmental (cyclones, ocean currents) but might also

include, for example, market factors or coastal development,

is necessary to interpret changes in catch and/or effort and

therefore fully assess the performance of the fishery.

Season reported

Readers should also be aware that the individual fishery and

aquaculture production figures relate to the latest full year or

season for which data are available, noting the inevitable

time-lags involved between collection and analysis.



Therefore, the statistics in this volume refer either to the

financial year 2012/13 or the calendar year 2013, whichever

is more appropriate. This includes estimates of the value of

the fishery which may vary from published estimates of GVP

due to differences between financial year and entitlement

year for a fishery, estimated value of secondary byproducts

for individual sectors, and estimating the total value of

several fisheries operating on a single resource and the source

of the data.

Similarly, the statistics on compliance and educational

activities are also for 2012/13, following the analysis of data

submitted by Fisheries and Marine Officers.

In contrast, the sections on departmental activities in the

areas of fishery management, new compliance activities and

research summaries are for the current year, and may include

information up to June 2014.

Performance measures

Many of the State’s significant fisheries have now undergone

assessment and achieved environmental certification under

the Commonwealth Government’s Environment Protection

and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Consequently, the Status Reports of Fisheries and Aquatic

Resources of Western Australia also reports on the ecological

performance of the relevant fisheries against the specific

performance measures used or developed during the EPBC

Act assessment process. These may vary among future

editions as EPBC conditions change and individual fisheries

determine the need and value of maintaining and resourcing

such accreditation.

Within the individual fishery status reports, each of these

performance measures is shown in a highlighted box to assist

the reader. The results are also summarised in Appendix 4.

As fisheries move through the full MSC process some will

gain conditions to maintain certification. The status of these

conditions will therefore begin to be reported as this process

progresses.

INTRODUCTION FIGURE 1

The basic EBFM component tree framework. Each of the Bioregions has their own tailored EBFM component tree in

which each of the ecological components have been subdivided into the set of ecological resources/assets relevant to

that Bioregion.



INTRODUCTION FIGURE 2

Map of Western Australia showing the general boundaries of the Bioregions referred to throughout this document and the

meso-scale ecosystems based on IMCRA 4.0 boundaries1.

1 http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/publications/imcra/pubs/imcra4.pdf


OVERVIEW OF THE STATUS OF KEY

ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES (ASSETS)

ECOSYSTEM STRUCTURE AND BIODIVERSITY

Fisheries and Stocks

Annual stock assessments, including analyses of trends in

catch and fishing activity, are used each year to determine the

status of each of the State’s most significant fisheries and are

presented in detail in the rest of this document. This section

provides an overview of the outcomes of the Department’s

management systems by collectively examining the status of

all the commercial fisheries and commercially harvested fish

stocks in WA. The material presented in this section is based

on the analyses and text presented in the Key Performance

Indicators section of the Department of Fisheries Annual

Report to the Parliament 2013/14.

The proportion of fish stocks identified as being

at risk or vulnerable through exploitation

To measure the performance of management, the proportion

of fisheries for which the breeding stocks of each of their

major target or indicator species are being maintained at

acceptable levels (or they are now recovering from a depleted

state at an appropriate rate following management

intervention), is measured annually.

For the 38 fisheries reviewed, the ‘Stock Status and Catch

Ranges for Major Commercial Fisheries’ in the Outcomes

section of the Annual Report

(http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/annual_reports/annua

l_report_2013-14.pdf) records that breeding stock

assessments are available for the major species taken in 36

(95%) of these fisheries. For the other two fisheries,

insufficient data were available on the target species to make

a critical assessment. In situations where unmonitored stocks

are assessed as having the potential to become overfished,

they are given priority for new research and/or management.

Within the group of 36 assessed fisheries, 28 involve stocks

that were considered to either have adequate breeding stock

levels and a further three (West Coast Demersal Scalefish

Fishery, the Southern and Northern Shark Fisheries) to have

breeding stocks considered to be recovering at acceptable

rates (86 per cent of fisheries). Each of these three

recovering fisheries target relatively long lived species so

their recovery is expected to take a number of years to

complete. The management generated reductions in catch

levels for all sectors of the West Coast Demersal Scalefish

Fishery have now been in place for a number of years and the

detailed reassessment outlined in last year’s report indicated

that these actions appear to be successful in initiating a

recovery for this suite of species. For the Southern Shark

Fishery the most recent assessments also showed continued

recovery of dusky and whiskery sharks. The Northern Shark

Fishery continues not to operate assisting in the recovery of

sandbar sharks.

Of the remaining 14% of fisheries, only the Australian

Herring Fishery has been assessed as having stock levels that

are not considered adequate to ensure catches could be

sustained at desirable levels given effort levels and normal

environmental conditions. A further four fisheries were also

assessed as having inadequate breeding stocks solely

resulting from the negative impacts of environmental

perturbations, not fishing. The increased mortality of adults

and extremely poor recruitment levels observed for Shark

Bay crabs, Shark Bay scallops and scallops in the Abrolhos

Island region which was initiated during the marine heat

wave event which began in 2011 have continued with some

recovery only being shown for Shark Bay crabs.

Consequently, these scallop fisheries remained closed for the

past season to protect residual stocks and Shark Bay crabs

had only limited experimental fishing activity. The stock of

crabs in Cockburn Sound is also showing signs of

environmental impacts on their growth and recruitment.

Therefore, while a total of 14 per cent of fisheries have stock

levels that are not considered adequate, only one fishery (or

3% of those assessed) is considered inadequate as a result of

exploitation (Overview Figure 1).

The proportion of commercial fisheries where

acceptable catches (or effort levels) are achieved

A target catch or effort range has been determined for each of

the major commercial fisheries (see Overview Table 1) by the

Department’s Research Division. This indicator provides an


plans and regulatory activities in keeping fish catches at

appropriate levels (including those in a recovery phase). The

Department’s 2012/13 Budget Papers state that the target is

eighty eight percent (88%).

The Major Commercial Fisheries which have target catch or

effort ranges account for most of the commercial value of

WA’s landed catch. Comparisons between the actual catches

(or effort) with the target ranges have been undertaken for 27

of the 38 fisheries referred to in Overview Table 1, three less

than the number used last year. The increase in the number of

fisheries not assessed was generated by a combination of

ongoing environmentally induced stock issues in some

regions (see above) and poor economic conditions for some

fisheries which meant a number of fisheries were either

closed or did not have material levels of catches during this

reporting period. Three fisheries (Shark Bay crabs, Shark

Bay scallops, Abrolhos Islands and mid-west trawl) which

were affected by unusual environmental conditions that

impacted their recruitment to the extent that the scallop

fisheries were again set to zero (0) catches and only very

limited experimental fishing for Shark Bay crabs occurred.

The setting of zero or very limited catches in these fisheries

highlights the significant management interventions of the

Department to reduce further impacting of the stocks by

fisheries, permitting the recovery and rebuilding of these

stocks. These stocks are being closely monitored by the

Research Division to allow their reopening when stocks have

OVERVIEW


rebuilt to the level to support sustainable fishing.

Of the 27 fisheries where ‘target ranges’ were available and a

material level of fishing was undertaken in 2012/13, ten were

catch-quota managed [through a TAC allocated through

Individually Transferable Quotas (ITQ)] with 17 subject to

effort control management.

Nine of these ten ITQ-managed fisheries operated within

their target effort/catch ranges or were acceptably below the

effort range (Roe’s abalone, pearl oysters, purse seine

fisheries). The south coast greenlip/brownlip abalone fishery

had an effort level that exceeded the acceptable level and a

reduction in TAC will occur in the 2014. In the 17 effort-

controlled fisheries, all but two produced catches that were

within (9) or acceptably above (1) or below (5) their target

catch ranges. The catch of snapper in the West Coast

Demersal was unacceptably above the range for this species

in some management areas, although the overall fishery catch

was within the range. Management of this fishery is

currently being reviewed. The west coast beach bait fishery

catch was well below historical levels prompting a review of

its status.

In summary, 24 of the 27 commercial fisheries assessed

(89%) were considered to have met their performance

criteria, or were affected by factors outside the purview of the

management plan/arrangements (Overview Figure 2), which

is close to the target level.

The proportion of recreational fisheries where

acceptable catches (or effort levels) are achieved

Target catch or effort ranges are beginning to be determined

for each of the major recreational fisheries by the

Department’s Research Division. This indicator provides an


plans and regulatory activities in keeping fish catches by this

sector at appropriate levels for both stock sustainability and

to meet integrated fisheries management objectives. This is

the first time this indicator has been measured.

For the purposes of this indicator, 17 fisheries or stocks have

been identified as having a ‘material’ recreational catch

share. Over time, the indicator may need to expand to

include reference to fisheries or stocks for which there are

other ‘material’ sectoral shares (e.g. customary fishing). Of

these 17 only seven currently have explicit catch ranges

developed and another six have implicit ranges that can be

used to assess acceptability. For these 13 fisheries, five had

catch levels that were within the acceptable catch range, the

marron fishery catch was also acceptably below the range and

another four without explicit ranges were clearly acceptable.

The low levels of recreational catch for the west coast

abalone fishery indicate there may be concerns for the reef

platform part of this stock following the marine heat wave.

In addition, the recreational catch of some demersal scalefish

species in the northern sections of both the West Coast

Demersal and Gascoyne Demersal fisheries are too high and

appropriate management adjustments are in the process of

being developed. Consequently the percentage of

recreational fisheries with acceptable catch levels was 77%,

which is close to the target level of 80%.

Benthic Habitat and Biodiversity

Monitoring

A range of monitoring tools is used to assess the condition of

ecosystems and associated biodiversity within the context of

Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management. Detailed

assessments of risk to the structure and benthic habitat of

specific ecosystems can be found within each bioregional risk

assessment of ecological assets. Across the marine

bioregions, risks to benthic habitat and ecosystem structure

and biodiversity have been generally assessed as ranging

from negligible to at most only moderate. The exceptions to

this are the estuarine ecosystems of the West Coast Bioregion

which are identified as being at significant risk due to

pressures from external (non-fishing) pressures largely

associated with deteriorating water quality.

Management

Based on the results of marine ecosystem monitoring coupled

to specifically identified management objectives, different

degrees of protection are afforded to areas in accordance with

categories established by the International Union for the

Conservation of Nature (IUCN;

http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/pa/pa_products

/wcpa_categories/ ) . These categories range from

sustainably managed multiple use categories (Category VI) to

complete no take areas where no extractive activity is

permitted (Category I). Spatial closures are identified

following a risk based assessment of ecological parameters

within a defined bioregion, and can involve total or partial

closures to fishing activity. Closures can be used alone, but

are often used in combination with other fisheries

management tools to achieve specific objectives.

Mechanisms in use for the protection of marine habitats in

Western Australian state waters include:

Spatial closure to trawl-based fisheries under the Fish

Resources Management Act 1994 (IUCN management

category IV)

Establishment of Fish habitat Protection Areas (FHPAs;

IUCN management category I)

Closures to fishing under section 43 of the Fish

Resources Management Act 1994 (IUCN management

category III)

Establishment of marine parks through the Conservation

and Land Management Act 1984 (CALM Act) and the

Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (IUCN

management categories I-VI)

Marine protected areas off WA can also be created in

Commonwealth waters under the Environment Protection

and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC).

A summary of the effective habitat protection afforded to

shelf waters off WA is detailed in Overview Table 2.

Listed species

In accordance with EBFM principles, risk-based assessment

of the impact of commercial and recreational fishing

activities on listed fish and non-fish species is undertaken.

Specific detail may again be found within each bioregional

OVERVIEW


risk assessment of ecological assets. Risks associated with

interactions with listed species were generally assessed as

being negligible to low with the exception of risks to

mammals (dolphins) resulting from the Pilbara trawl fishery.

Dolphin exclusion devices have reduced the incidence to

acceptable levels and further refinements to net design are in

progress. Risks associated with birds and mammals (sea

lions) in the South Coast Bioregion were also assessed as

moderate and appropriate management measures are being

undertaken to attempt to mitigate these risks. Most recently

the level of entanglements of whales in pot ropes has required

establishment of a steering group and initiation of research

projects for additional mitigation.

GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Introduced Pests and Diseases

The Department of Fisheries is the lead state government

agency responsible for the management of aquatic biosecurity

in Western Australia. Aquatic biosecurity threats include

disease outbreaks in wild and farmed fish and the

introduction of marine and freshwater pest species that are

not native to WA.

Introduced marine species are organisms that have moved, or

been moved from their natural environment to another area.

Many of these organisms remain inconspicuous and

innocuous causing no known adverse effects. However, some

can potentially threaten human health, economic values or the

environment, in which case they are then referred to as

marine pests. Introduced marine species are a global problem,

and second only to habitat change and loss in reducing global

biodiversity (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005)1.

The introduction of marine species into a new region can be

deliberate or accidental. Deliberate introductions may result

from aquaculture practices or releases from aquariums.

Accidental introductions are primarily due to shipping and

recreational craft moving from country to country, with the

pests being transported in ballast water, on ship hulls, or

within a vessel’s internal seawater pipes. Introduced marine

species also arrive naturally via marine debris and ocean

currents.

In recognition of an increasing risk presented by aquatic

pests and diseases to WA associated with increasing

international travel, transport and trade, the Department has

developed the capacity for rapid detection and identification

of aquatic pests and diseases. Rapid detection of introduced

aquatic pests and diseases is important in preventing their

spread and establishment. This section provides an overview

of the Department’s activities with respect to marine pests

and diseases monitoring in the state in 2013/14. Further detail

is reported at the bioregional level and further information on

Departmental activity in this field may be found in the

appendix (Activities of the Fish Health Unit during 2013/14

and Activities of the Biosecurity Research Group 2013/14).

1 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being:

Biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington DC. 86 pp.

The Marine Biosecurity Research group has implemented a

system to monitor high risk ports around the state for the

presence of marine pests. As an ocean bound nation

Australia relies heavily on maritime transport, with over 95%

of our imports and exports carried by sea. The large ocean

going vessels that transport these goods represent one of the

largest vectors of introduced species, while recreational

vessels represent the major secondary vector that can spread

pests from ports and marinas around the coastline. For these

reasons our ports and marinas become high risk areas for the

introduction of a marine pest. The Commonwealth

Government, together with the states and territories have

developed a national system of policies and procedures to try

and reduce the risk of marine pests arriving in Australian

waters. Part of this system includes the monitoring of high

risk ports, which are those ports that receive large numbers of

vessels, high risk vessels (such as dredges) or are

geographically close to areas with known invasive marine

species. This section details the results of the monitoring

conducted in 2012/13 for detection of introduced marine

pests (Overview Table 3).

The Department provides the Federal Department of

Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries with a quarterly report on

nationally notifiable aquatic diseases detected in Western

Australia. This information is compiled with that of other

Australian jurisdictions and is provided quarterly to the

World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). Summary data

is available at http://www.oie.int/

The Department coordinates the fish kill response program

within Western Australia. This program forms part of a

national program endorsed by Primary Industries Standing

Committee and Natural Resource Management Standing

Committee in December 2006. The number and cause of fish

kills is also a key indicator in the “State of the Environment

Report” (SOE) issued from time to time by the environmental

protection authority (IW19 Number and location of

significant fishkills). The number of significant fishkills

investigated in Western Australia since the last SOE report is

shown in Overview Table 4.

OVERVIEW


OVERVIEW TABLE 1

Stock Status, Catch & Effort Ranges for the Major Commercial Fisheries

NA - Not applicable, Q - Quota management, TAC - Total Allowable Catch, TACC - Total Allowable Commercial Catch

Fishery /

Resource

Stock assessment

method and level

Breeding

stock

assessment

Target catch

(and effort)

range in tonnes

(days)

Catch (tonnes)

and Effort

(days/hours) for

season

reported1,2

2012/13 or 2013

Catch (or effort) level acceptable

and explanation if needed

WEST COAST BIOREGION

West coast

rock lobster

Size-structured

Population Model

(Level 5)

Adequate 5,554 (Q) 5640

Acceptable

A Total Allowable Commercial

Catch (TACC) of 5,554 t was set

for the 2013 season. The total

landings were slightly greater

than the TACC due to a water

loss adjustment. Due to the

conservative nature of the

TACC, egg production is at

record high levels.

Roe’s

abalone

Catch Rates & Direct

Survey

(Level 4)

Adequate

92.8 (Q)

(530 – 640

days)

73.2

(457 days)

Acceptable

Catch was less than the quota in

Area 5 (50% caught) and Area 6

(60% caught) due to economic

reasons (low value of catch) and

high cost of accessing these

areas. Area 8 fishery remains

closed due to catastrophic

mortality by marine heat wave.

Catch rates in Areas 2 and 7

were below threshold level and

10% reduction in TACC

imposed.

Octopus

Catch Rates

(Level 2)

Adequate 50 - 250 226

Acceptable

Fishery in development phase.

Target range to be reviewed

following completion of initial

assessments.

Abrolhos

Islands and

mid west

trawl

Direct Survey &

Catch Rates

(Level 4)

Environ.

Limited

95 – 1,830 (set

to 0 for this

year)

0

NA

The fishery was not opened due

to annual survey indicating low

scallop abundance with a catch

prediction below the target level

for fishing. This has resulted

from continued effects of low

recruitment due to the extreme

environmental conditions of early

2011. The low recruitment has

resulted in a very low spawning

stock despite no fishing activity.

OVERVIEW


Fishery /

Resource

Stock assessment

method and level

Breeding

stock

assessment

Target catch

(and effort)

range in tonnes

(days)

Catch (tonnes)

and Effort

(days/hours) for

season

reported1,2

2012/13 or 2013



WEST COAST BIOREGION (Continued)

Cockburn

Sound crab

Direct Survey

(Level 4)

Environ.

Limited Under Revision 61

NA

While catch improved from 11/12

juvenile recruitment was very low

possibly due to lack of growth of

the large juvenile cohort resulting

in poor mating success and

subsequent low numbers of

berried females over the 2012/13

summer. Given low juvenile

abundance in 2013, the fishery

in 2013/14 was monitored

closely and an early closure was

recommended.

Estuarine

finfish (west

coast)

No Assessment N/A

75 – 220

(Peel-Harvey

only)

120 (PH only)

Acceptable

Catches of west coast estuarine

finfish have been stable since

2000.

West coast

beach bait

Catch

(Level 1)

Environ.

Limited

60 – 275

(whitebait only)

13 (whitebait

only)

Not Acceptable

Annual whitebait catch fluctuates

in response to environmental

variations. Catch decline follows

recent years of exceptionally

warm ocean temperatures.

Catch is significantly below

acceptable range. Management

intervention may be required.

West coast

purse seine

Catch

(Level 1)

Adequate 0 – 3,000 (Q)

219 t (scaly

mackerel and

pilchard

combined)

Acceptable

Continued low catches

compared to pre-2005 due to low

fishing effort levels. 2013 catch

includes catches from the

managed fishery and the

northern and southern

developmental zones. This is the

first year that catches from both

developmental zones are

reported.

West coast

demersal

scalefish

Catch by sector

(Level 1)

Fishing Mortality (F)

(Level 3)

Recovering

< 450

(Demersal

Suite)

395

Not Acceptable

The total catch of the demersal

suite by all commercial fisheries

was within acceptable levels.

WCDSIMF catches of snapper in

the Mid-west and Kalbarri areas

and of WA dhufish in the Mid-

west area were too high.

OVERVIEW


Fishery /

Resource

Stock assessment

method and level

Breeding

stock

assessment

Target catch

(and effort)

range in tonnes

(days)

Catch (tonnes)

and Effort

(days/hours) for

season

reported1,2

2012/13 or 2013



GASCOYNE COAST BIOREGION

Shark Bay

prawn

Direct Survey/Catch

Rate

(Level 4)

Adequate 1,350-2,150 1815

Acceptable

King and tiger prawn catches

were both within the target

ranges.

Exmouth

Gulf prawn

Direct Survey/Catch

rate

(Level 4)

Environ.

Limited 771 – 1,276 585

Acceptable

The total catch was below target

range from poor recruitment of

tiger prawns due to

environmental conditions. The

landings were higher than the

extremely low catches in 2012

indicating some recovery.

Shark Bay

scallop

Catch Rates and

Direct Survey

(Level 4)

Environ.

Limited

1,250 – 3,000

(fishery closed

this year)

0

NA

The fishery did not open due to

very low recruitment and stock

abundance over the past 3 years

due to continued influence of the

extreme environmental

conditions from heat wave

events. No recovery observed

despite no fishing by the scallop

boats and no retention by the

prawn trawl sector.

Shark Bay

Crabs

Catch Rates/Size

Distributions

(Level 3)

Environ.

Limited

Fishery closed

from April 2012

to Sept. 2013.

Harvest

strategy under

development

36 (20 trap + 16

trawl)

NA

The fishery remained closed until

September 2013 due to poor

recruitment and stock levels

resulting from extreme

environmental conditions.

Biomass indices showed partial

recovery, which was confirmed

by experimental commercial

fishing.

Shark Bay

beach seine

and mesh

net

Catch Rates

(Level 2)

Adequate 235 – 335 211

Acceptable

Total catch remained below the

target range due to a further

reduction in effort and decline in

sea mullet catch; catches of

whiting increased to highest level

since mid-1980s.

OVERVIEW


Fishery /

Resource

Stock assessment

method and level

Breeding

stock

assessment

Target catch

(and effort)

range in tonnes

(days)

Catch (tonnes)

and Effort

(days/hours) for

season

reported1,2

2012/13 or 2013



GASCOYNE COAST BIOREGION (Continued)

West Coast

Deep sea

crab

Catch Rate

(Level 2)

Adequate

154 (Q)

(50,000 -

80,000 potlifts)

140 crystal crab

(53,414 potlifts)

Acceptable

The catch is within the target

catch range, with the

standardised catch rate of legal

crabs at the highest level in a

decade with effort within its

target range. Nominal effort

estimate at the lower end of the

target range.

Gascoyne

Demersal

Scalefish

(Snapper

only)

Composite

Assessment

(Level 5)

Adequate

277 (Q)

(380 – 540

days)

233

(328 days)

plus 40

recreational

catch

Acceptable

Spawning biomass is above the

threshold level and, at the

current TACC, is projected to

reach the target level by 2014-

15. Catch rate is well above the

threshold and at highest level

since mid-1990s.

NORTH COAST BIOREGION

Onslow

prawn

Catch

(Level 1)

Adequate 60 – 180 Negligible

NA

Minimal fishing occurred in 2013.

Nickol Bay

prawn

Catch

(Level 1)

Adequate 90 – 300 106

Acceptable

Catch of banana prawns were

within the target catch range and

slightly lower than the predicted

catch.

Broome

prawn

Catch

(Level 1)

Adequate 55 – 260 2

NA

The very low level of effort

continued because of the cost of

fishing, high fuel prices and long

distances to steam, and low

returns.

Kimberley

prawn

Catch

(Level 1)

Adequate 240 – 500 154

Acceptable

The banana prawn catches were

well below the catch prediction

and the target range. The effort

in the fishery was the second

lowest recorded since 1990.

Kimberley

gillnet and

barramundi

Catch Rates

(Level 2)

Adequate 32 – 45

(barramundi) 52

Acceptable

The catch of barramundi is

slightly above the acceptable

range. The harvest strategy

needs to be reviewed.

OVERVIEW


Fishery /

Resource

Stock assessment

method and level

Breeding

stock

assessment

Target catch

(and effort)

range in tonnes

(days)

Catch (tonnes)

and Effort

(days/hours) for

season

reported1,2

2012/13 or 2013



NORTH COAST BIOREGION (Continued)

Northern

demersal

scalefish

Catch and Catch

Rates/

Integrated Model

(Level 2 & 5)

Adequate Under revision

Total 1,228

(goldband 493)

(red emperor

131)

NA

Total catch is above the upper

limit across the fishery due to an

increase in catch in Zone A.

Catches of goldband snapper

and red emperor were both

within the acceptable catch

range. Full assessments and a

review of catch ranges are in

progress.

Pilbara fish

trawl

Catch and Catch

Rates/

Fishing Mortality/

Integrated Model

(Level 2, 3 & 5)

Adequate Under revision 1,074

NA

Reduced catch due to reductions

in effort quota since 2009. Full

assessment and review of catch

range scheduled over the next

12 months.

Pilbara

demersal

trap and line

Catch and Catch

Rates/

Fishing Mortality/

Integrated Model

(Level 2, 3 & 5)

Adequate

400 – 600

(trap)

50 – 115 (line)

339 (trap)

85 (line)

Acceptable

Trap catch was lower than the

target catch range due to

reduced effort in the fishery in

2013. The line catch was within

the target catch range.

Mackerel

Catch

(Level 1)

Adequate

246 – 410 (Q,

Spanish

Mackerel)

277

Acceptable

Catches lower than previous few

years but remain within the

acceptable range for the fishery.

Northern

shark No Assessment NA

< 20

(sandbar) 0

NA

No fishing effort continued for

this year.

Pearl oyster

Catch rate

predictions,

standardised CPUE

(Level 3)

Adequate

754,800

oysters (Q)

(14,071 –

20,551 dive

hours)

517,653 oysters

(11,995 dive

hours)

Acceptable

Quota this year also included

150,000 large mother-of-pearl

(MOP) oysters fished under a

research and development

permit to explore the potential for

an MOP fishery. The Zone 1

quota (115,000 shell) was not

fished and some culture shell

quota was not fished for

economic reasons. Catch rate

indices were above threshold

levels.

OVERVIEW


Fishery /

Resource

Stock assessment

method and level

Breeding

stock

assessment

Target catch

(and effort)

range in tonnes

(days)

Catch (tonnes)

and Effort

(days/hours) for

season

reported1,2

2012/13 or 2013



NORTH COAST BIOREGION (Continued)

Beche-de-

mer

Catch Rate

(Level 2)

Adequate

Sandfish 20 –

100

Redfish 40 -

150